Texas v Kennedy: What it means for community services for people with disabilities

/in /by Katie Gustainis

The Arc of Washington state agrees with the below statement from leading national disability organizations on the recent settlement of Texas v. Kennedy:

National Disability Organizations Condemn the Federal Government’s Abandonment of Its Commitment to Community Integration for People with Disabilities, as Approved by the Court in Texas v. Kennedy

“Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted an order implementing a settlement between the federal government, Texas, and four other states. The court order vacates provisions referencing the longstanding right to community integration for people with disabilities in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally funded programs. The federal government’s Section 504 regulations have included integration provisions since 1977. The court’s order in Texas v. Kennedy accepting the parties’ agreement breaks with decades of caselaw recognizing and upholding the right of people with disabilities to live, learn, and work in their communities.

We strongly and unequivocally condemn the federal government’s abandonment of its duty to enforce the right of people with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities.

The court’s order does not impact other portions of the 2024 HHS Section 504 Rule or any other agency’s disability rights regulations. Nor does it change the statutory requirements in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Longstanding legal precedent across the country makes clear that federal law requires state and local governments to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate and prohibit the unnecessary institutionalization and segregation of people with disabilities.

We will not go back.”

This statement was created by The Arc of the United States, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Public Representation, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Justice in Aging, the National Health Law Program, and American Civil Liberties Union, with contributions by Alison Barkoff, Hirsh Health Law and Policy Associate Professor, George Washington University.

For a plain-language summary of the implications from the Texas v. Kennedy case, we recommend reading this social media Facebook post by Haley Gray, a disability rights activist. It is excerpted below:

“What Happened in Texas v. Kennedy, and Why It Matters” by Haley Gray

On September 23, 2026, a federal judge in Texas entered final judgment in Texas v. Kennedy and vacated the community-integration portions of the Department of Health and Human Services’ 2024 Section 504 regulations.
That sounds technical.
It is not.
The provisions that were removed dealt with when disabled people have the right to receive services in their homes and communities rather than being unnecessarily segregated in institutions, nursing facilities, hospitals, or other disability-specific settings.
The court specifically eliminated the 2024 rule’s definition of the “most integrated setting,” the entire integration section at 45 C.F.R. § 84.76, and several other provisions directing federally funded programs to prioritize services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the disabled person. The order applies nationally, not only in the states that brought the lawsuit.
There is an important nuance here.
This was not a traditional ruling where the federal government defended the regulation, the states challenged it, and the judge chose the states’ legal argument after full adversarial briefing.
By the end of the case, the federal government had switched sides.
The Department of Justice, acting for HHS, joined Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, and Texas in asking the court to remove the community-integration provisions. The judge granted that joint request and expressly said he was not deciding the other claims or legal issues beyond what was necessary to provide the requested relief.
That reversal matters…”
You can read the rest of Haley’s post on her Facebook page: